MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFiTN-vzDvNz=ExGXz6gdyjtzGixKSqs0mKHMmaQ8sOSEFZ33A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFiTN-vzDvNz=ExGXz6gdyjtzGixKSqs0mKHMmaQ8sOSEFZ33A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 17:57:20 +0530
Message-ID: <CAFiTN-taYmir2_g+aWeEVQopvLB5K-0316KAFsBEsXx5OiaM9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: SLRU optimization - configurable buffer pool and partitioning the
 SLRU lock
To: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-taYmir2_g%2BaWeEVQopvLB5K-0316KAFsBEsXx5OiaM9A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 4:34=E2=80=AFPM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
>
> The small size of the SLRU buffer pools can sometimes become a
> performance problem because it=E2=80=99s not difficult to have a workload
> where the number of buffers actively in use is larger than the
> fixed-size buffer pool. However, just increasing the size of the
> buffer pool doesn=E2=80=99t necessarily help, because the linear search t=
hat
> we use for buffer replacement doesn=E2=80=99t scale, and also because
> contention on the single centralized lock limits scalability.
>
> There is a couple of patches proposed in the past to address the
> problem of increasing the buffer pool size, one of the patch [1] was
> proposed by Thomas Munro where we make the size of the buffer pool
> configurable.

In my last email, I forgot to give the link from where I have taken
the base path for dividing the buffer pool in banks so giving the same
here[1].  And looking at this again it seems that the idea of that
patch was from
Andrey M. Borodin and the idea of the SLRU scale factor were
introduced by Yura Sokolov and Ivan Lazarev.  Apologies for missing
that in the first email.

[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/43/2627/

--=20
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com